Oh boy: Tony Perkins calls on social cons to stop donating to the RNC

posted at 7:56 pm on March 31, 2010 by Allahpundit

In theory, this isn’t a problem — the money that would have gone to the RNC will go to the NRSC or NRCC or individual candidates — but let’s be realistic. Some people who are used to cutting checks to the parent committee aren’t going to bother looking around for other Republican groups to donate to. And some, knowing that the money’s going into the same basic pot no matter how they donate, aren’t going to bother donating to any of them.

Turns out that “Voyeur” reimbursement is the most expensive bar tab evah:

This latest incident is another indication to me that the RNC is completely tone-deaf to the values and concerns of a large number of people from whom they seek financial support.

Earlier this month the RNC made a big deal about hiring “renowned Supreme Court lawyer” Ted Olson to represent the RNC in a campaign finance case that is expected to go to the U.S. Supreme Court. Yes, this is the same Ted Olson that is trying to overturn the results of the marriage amendment in California. The outcome of Olson’s challenge to Prop 8 goes far beyond nullifying the votes of nearly 7 million voters in California; his efforts could lead to the overturning of amendments and laws in all 45 states that currently define marriage as the union of one man and one woman.

I’ve hinted at this before, but now I am saying it–don’t give money to the RNC. If you want to put money into the political process, and I encourage you to do so, give directly to candidates who you know reflect your values. Better yet, become a member of FRC Action and learn about the benefits it offers, including participating in the FRC Action PAC which can support candidates who will advance faith, family and freedom!

Follow the link and check out the graphic. This is incredibly lame given the quick action taken by the RNC to can the offending staffer, but Perkins clearly was looking for an excuse to flex some muscle. He’s unhappy that social con money is being funneled by the RNC to people who aren’t, shall we say, robustly socially conservative themselves, so he’s going to try to nudge the GOP to the right on social issues by limiting his base’s dollars to only like-minded Republicans. Nothing wrong with that, but two can play at that game — and should. If you’re of a more libertarian bent, why not skip the GOP groups and give directly to like-minded candidates yourself? And if it turns out that some socially conservative candidate is in trouble in the fall and needs a cash influx, and the RNC simply doesn’t have the money — too bad, so sad. We could potentially lose winnable seats this way, but obviously Perkins isn’t worried about that. Why should you?

Maybe this is the beginning of the end for major party committees, at least as far as the base is concerned. They’re a useful tool for people who don’t have the time or inclination to research individual candidates, but for grassroots conservatives, that’s not a problem. The Internet is a wonderful thing; avail yourself of it!

Update: More Perkins heart-ache: Pete Sessions once held a fundraiser at a burlesque club or something.

LOL … Tony Perkins and the FRC aren’t beholden to the RNC or anyone else.

Nobody said they were. We were hoping that they could put away the HOLIER THAN THOU crap for a few months so that we can stop the socialist crapweasel President and his Clown Car Congress from spending the nation into Greece-like disaster.

But whatever. People going to strip clubs is a MUCH more pressing emergency that has to be addressed now.

Deut. 22:23-24 for Adultery
Numbers 15:32-36 for breaking the Shabbat
Lev. 20:27 for having a familiar
Deut. 21,21 for rebelling against parents in a ‘disgusting way’
Lev. 24:10-16 or Cursing God
Exodus 19:13 for Touching Mount Sinai while God was giving Moses the Ten Commandments
Deuteronomy 17:2-7 for Idolatry
Deut. 13:7-12 for seducing people to Idolatry

As Rush said on his show the day after they passed Obama Death Care:”We need to defeat these b*st*rds!”

Yep. Any and every way we can.
If you’re mad at the RNC, give to Tony’s group or someone else supporting Conservatives and Republicans, but get the Leftist b*st*rds out of office in November.
Just do it.

Actually, Muslims are descended from Abraham and the God of Abraham is the God of Muslims. Jews, Muslims and Christians share the same God, we just have different views of him. In addition, the Jews and Muslims share many of the same laws of the Old testatment, they are more alike to each other than either are to Christians.

If a Catholic congressman opposes abortion because of his faith AND because its the ultimate affront to the liberty of the unborn child the I have no problem with that. Its when they say they’re public decisions are informed by their private religious convictions that I have a problem with it.

sluhser589 on March 31, 2010 at 9:07 PM

Fair enough though I can not think of a single politician that speaks with that kind of clarity in 2010 (which is why I mentioned some respect for Paul Wellstone with whom I had no affinity). A Congressman is likely to be more concerned with their chances of being re-elected than they are with what their proclaimed faith tells them about how they should be voting. Faith and values should be one of those non-negotiable things that get one of these creatures to Congress and, yet, it all seems negotiable once they get to Washington DC and that is the “culture of corruption” that needs to end.

Again, huh? Our Constitution ensures us all the right to worship as we wish, and how in the h is that rigid? I think you need to read the Constitution, and I also think we need to compare definitions of “rigid.”

theenforser on March 31, 2010 at 9:16 PM

Answer these questions for me.

Do you want the Constitution to be rigid in its applicability to your ability and freedom to worship as you wish?

If the answer to the first question is yes, do you think that the Constitution was conceived in a moral and religious vacuum?

If the answer to the second question is no, what set of moral and religious convictions informed the conception and specification of those principles enshrined in the Constitution?

If the answer to the third question is “an irreligious indifference to any set of moral or religious convictions”, why did you answer no to the second question?

The Constitution came from something. It did not come from “the Enlightenment” any more than the internal combustion engine cam “from engineering”. The Constitution came from a distinct set of moral and religious principles based in an already established framework. That framework was not the rabid atheism of France’s revolution that so entranced Thomas Paine et al. It was the balance between a distrust of the human condition espoused by Adams and Washington and trust in God-endowed liberty espoused by Jefferson and Madison. In other words, it was based in a thoroughgoing application of Christian doctrine to the problem of governance. That’s why it worked.

Again, huh? Our Constitution ensures us all the right to worship as we wish, and how in the hell is that rigid? I think you need to read the Constitution, and I also think we need to compare definitions of “rigid.”

theenforser on March 31, 2010 at 9:16 PM

Answer these questions for me.

Do you want the Constitution to be rigid in its applicability to your ability and freedom to worship as you wish?

If the answer to the first question is yes, do you think that the Constitution was conceived in a moral and religious vacuum?

If the answer to the second question is no, what set of moral and religious convictions informed the conception and specification of those principles enshrined in the Constitution?

If the answer to the third question is “an irreligious indifference to any set of moral or religious convictions”, why did you answer no to the second question?

The Constitution came from something. It did not come from “the Enlightenment” any more than the internal combustion engine cam “from engineering”.

The Constitution came from a distinct set of moral and religious principles based in an already established framework. That framework was not the rabid atheism of France’s rvolution that so entranced Thomas Paine et al. It was the balance between a distrust of the human condition espoused by Adams and Washington and trust in God-endowed liberty espoused by Jefferson and Madison. In other words, it was based in a thoroughgoing application of Christian doctrine to the problem of governance. That’s why it worked.

the God of Abraham is the God of Muslims. Jews, Muslims and Christians share the same God, we just have different views of him. In addition, the Jews and Muslims share many of the same laws of the Old testatment, they are more alike to each other than either are to Christians.

theenforser on March 31, 2010 at 9:42 PM

Not exactly.
The God of the Jews follows Abraham after his son Isaac.
The Muslims go with the other son–check out their Festival of Eid.
There, the line of succession ends.
The reason Islam and the Koran echo so much of Judaism is that Mohammed appropriated large chunks of it almost wholesale to give his false religion validity.
That being said, he also targeted their fellow Semites, the Jews, for extinction.

We need to rebuild the GOP – simply winning elections won’t do it. We need new people.

HondaV65 on March 31, 2010 at 9:41 PM

Not necessarily new people (excluding folks like Lindsey Graham, David Vitter, or John McCain). It’s a new message. One that can be inclusive of Republicans like Scott Brown, the Maine sisters, or Mark Kirk the presumptive “RINO” from Illinois. The GOP needs to focus on the big concerns like fiscal responsibility and national security and let the social issues evolve outside of the legislative process.

It was only until FDR/JFK/LBJ that government injected itself in social issues. That was wrong and still is.

Obama and his hordes of moochers, looters and bigots are the bad guys.

Steele is not “the bad guy.”

But when the RNC gets busted by a liberal blogger for waste, fraud, and abuse of contributions – and we get angry about it to the point one of us calls a “time out” until this can get squared away …

Here’s the thing.

With a 24-hour all-hostile collective media cycle, a Democrat smear machine desperate for something, ANYTHING to stem the bleeding of their side and give them respite, a Democrat party trying to essentially criminalize dissent with LARGE majorities in Congress and a President who thinks exhorting people to “get in their faces” and “punch back twice as hard” is “non-partisanship,” we don’t have a lot of time for navel gazing and a “time out.” There is no “time out.”

The offending staffer was fired. A head rolled. TIME TO MOVE ON AND WIN THIS THING.

The Muslims go with the other son–check out their Festival of Eid.
There, the line of succession ends.
The reason Islam and the Koran echo so much of Judaism is that Mohammed appropriated large chunks of it almost wholesale to give his false religion validity.
That being said, he also targeted their fellow Semites, the Jews, for extinction.

Jenfidel on March 31, 2010 at 9:46 PM

Yes, I believe the other son was Ishmeal? Anyway, the Muslims trace their roots to Abraham and his God. Remember, Jews were arabaic- they have the similar roots, language (aramaic and hebrew are arabaic), foods, and were influenced by pagen cultures in the Middle East. I have several muslim friends, studied world religions in college and am a history buff. You would be surprised at how similar the two are, yet hate eachother so much. I understand there are many, many evil muslims, yet we cannot say all are bad. Many don’t view Islam like the terrorists do. It’s all about interpretation. But isn’t it always?

And if Reagan were keen to kowtow to the Soviet Union like Carter, you’d still have voted for him. Yes?

But he wasn’t. He was very clear. The difference between Obamcrats and even a squish like John McCain is stark and bright. Not as bright as some would like, but you can’t sacrifice the good enough for the perfect.

These are troubling times that require people to FOCUS on the common foe – the liberal welfare leviathan threatening to enslave the country for the next several decades and beyond. And you with it.

If The Daily Caller found this out about the DNC it would not have gotten half the MSM coverage and would be called homophobic for denigrating lesbians. Jon “Democrat flunky” Stewart certainly wouldn’t have donated 10 minutes of his show to laughing about it.

Reagan, whom I love, was not a social conservative- he was more liberatarian. He apppealed to the soccons for their votes, but was not one of them. He understand what freedom and liberty were all about. That’s not to say he was immoral. While he did not attend church, he was pro-life and believed deeply in God.

As a card-carrying member (not a spokesman!) of the self-righteous anti-reason brigade, I submit that we are fully capable of multi-tasking. ;)

spmat on March 31, 2010 at 9:57 PM

Couldn’t agree more!
Notice, also, that Sarah Palin has by-passed the RNC and its formal groups and is campaigning for Republican Conservative candidates through her own PAC and appeals on her Facebook Notes.

If The Daily Caller found this out about the DNC it would not have gotten half the MSM coverage and would be called homophobic for denigrating lesbians. Jon “Democrat flunky” Stewart certainly wouldn’t have donated 10 minutes of his show to laughing about it.

Speedwagon82 on March 31, 2010 at 9:58 PM

I guess no one in the RNC knew about the double-standard in the media?

If The Daily Caller found this out about the DNC it would not have gotten half the MSM coverage and would be called homophobic for denigrating lesbians. Jon “Democrat flunky” Stewart certainly wouldn’t have donated 10 minutes of his show to laughing about it.

The media is liberal and sympathetic to the Democrats. Conservatives chose over the last several decades not to engage the left in pop culture.

This is the end result. Pop culture matters, but its far too late to change that dynamic now.

Reagan signed a “therapeutic abortion” bill that was meant to allow abortions for the well-being of the mother. I think he was horrified at how doctors interpreted it – as it was responsible for killing millions of babies.

BUT …

Reagan ran on a platform of supporting a Constitutional Amendment to Ban Abortions except for the life of the mother.

He never really pushed it enough though – sooo … Oh well – the SoCons were definitely duped there, which is more reason we’re not going to be fooled anymore by smooth talk.

What in the hell does that matter- he did them. It’s a fact. Does it make him less of a person? No. He was a great man, believed in God, and also understood freedom and liberty, and love of fellow man regardless of differences.

I understand there are many, many evil muslims, yet we cannot say all are bad. Many don’t view Islam like the terrorists do. It’s all about interpretation. But isn’t it always?

theenforser on March 31, 2010 at 9:56 PM

Sorry, I think it’s a religion of Evil.
All “good” Muslims are told to wage jihad, meaning war on non-Muslims.
We call good, Koran-observant Muslims “radical” but they’re not.
Remember when HA used to have Robert Spencer write columns on what the Koran really said?
I miss those columns alot.

We cannot diminish the value of one category of human life — the unborn — without diminishing the value of all human life.

Regrettably, we live at a time when some persons do not value all human life. They want to pick and choose which individuals have value.

We cannot survive as a free nation when some men decide that others are not fit to live and should be abandoned to abortion or infanticide. My Administration is dedicated to the preservation of America as a free land, and there is no cause more important for preserving that freedom than affirming the transcendent right to life of all human beings, the right without which no other rights have any meaning.

The real question today is not when human life begins, but, What is the value of human life?

Hot Air has been a blog I read at least twice a day and I have lurked here since Hot Air first opened up to comments, back in April of 2006 I believe. Over the years I have enjoyed reading what was on the minds of my fellow travelers on the non-left; some funny, some challenging and thought provoking, some hilarious and some where I just had to shake my head in wonderment. I consider many of you friends even though we have never said hello. Things have gotten emotional in here before, but no thread ever prompted me to post myself before now. The level of vitriol obviously evident is shocking. I have seen fascist thrown around as if in a Kos thread. I don’t have all the answers, but if we are so contemptuous of each other, if we hate the person next to us so much as appears to be evident here, maybe we don’t deserve to beat back the liberals.

Reagan, whom I love, was not a social conservative- he was more liberatarian.

And you base this on?

He apppealed to the soccons for their votes, but was not one of them.

He did not oppose them, either. Or have his campaign pay for lesbian bondage clubs. Nor did he tell them that they’re a bunch of morons for having standards of behavior.

He was tolerant. Which is exactly what the anti-SoCon folks in this thread aren’t. They want the SoCons to either STFU and donate or GTFO. Any talk of the wrongness of paying for lesbian bondage clubs for the sake of the party is only legitimately couched in terms of pragmatic concerns for electability. The first time someone says, “Y’know, paying for lesbian bondage clubs is wrong,” everyone here goes hellfire and brimstone accusing the SoCons of suicidal tendencies.

While he did not attend church, he was pro-life and believed deeply in God.

It was Nelle [Reagan’s mother] who insisted her boy go to church–a request he happily obliged–and it was in church that Reagan picked up not only those core beliefs and values, but also the intangibles so vital to his success: his confidence, his eternal optimism (which he called a “God-given optimism”), and even his ability to speak. Indeed, history has also overlooked the fact that the Great Communicator found his first audiences in a church. He learned to speak in a church.

Reagan’s rhetoric about a shining city on a hill was not feigned cynicism.

What in the hell does that matter- he did them. It’s a fact. Does it make him less of a person? No. He was a great man, believed in God, and also understood freedom and liberty, and love of fellow man regardless of differences.

He was a Social Conservative, but it’s defined differenly and more accutely now.

Abortion is the Democrat Lefts’ signature issue.
(Hint: it wasn’t an accident that abortion was the big Stupak stumbling block to the Death Care bill.)

Jenfidel on March 31, 2010 at 10:11 PM

I’m not sure if you are old enough to remember Regan, or if you’ve read his writings, but he was more liberatarian. That’s not to say he didn’t hold some socially conservative views, but I don’t believe that he ever described or aligned himself with the social conservatives.

Please note: I am not liberatarian, I’m a conservative who is against abortion, legal drugs and gay marrige. I just am not so passionate about social issues as I am about liberty, freedom and fiscal conservativism. To me they are more important issues, and should be the issues the party focuses on more than social issues if we are to take back the House and Senate.

Remember when HA used to have Robert Spencer write columns on what the Koran really said?
I miss those columns alot.

Jenfidel on March 31, 2010 at 10:08 PM

Yes.

Dr. Spencer is an amazing man. His ability to interpret and explain the meanings, history, and implications of the Koran and the attached toilet paper suras etc., is unmatched. If there is a better resource concerning Islam, the Koran, and matters related, I am unaware of them. I sorely miss him and his contributions here at HA. I am at a loss as to why he was shown the back of Michelle’s hand.

…For example, christians and Jews believe homosexuality and premarital sex are sins. Yet, they are not illegal in the law. …
theenforser on March 31, 2010 at 8:39 PM

Yet they used to be, not so very long ago, as was abortion (Back when it seemed God was still blessing America, funnily enough).

Actually, there are still laws on some books against premarital sex, ie fornication, though they have probably never been enforced. And as we know, the sodomy laws were only just struck down by the courts a very few years ago.

I wonder how many of us realized we were living in a fascist theocracy all those nearly 200 years. /

Some, I for one, might suggest all this is part of the problem in this country. Our morality has disappeared and with it, God’s blessing.

So many here like to say they want to get back to our Founding Fathers’ principals of limited government, states rights, personal responsibility etc… That’s a good start, but many here seem to overlook the most important principal they held, written so plainly in that great Declaration of Independence. Can you spot it?

We, therefore, the Representatives of the united States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name, and by Authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare, That these united Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States, that they are Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as Free and Independent States, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do. — And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes, and our sacred Honor.

So, were they a bunch of backwoods, Neanderthals who were so simple minded they needed to believe in a ‘sky fairy’ to protect them? Of course not. Yet, they knew they could not build this country alone, and that they needed God’s blessing, and therefore referenced the laws of nature and of natures God, and lest anyone argue that it wasn’t necessarily a Christian God–that they were all a bunch of deists, BS. They were almost all Christian whether they went to church regularly or not.

The Judeo-Christian God is the God of our Founding Fathers, like it or not, and we cannot win while ignoring the laws of nature and of Nature’s God.

I don’t think it is a coincidence that we are nearing the 40th anniversary of Roe-v-Wade (a sin against nature and nature’s God if ever there was one) as all seems to be crashing down around us. Anyone who is remotely religious will recognize the significance of the number 40. That the 40th anniversary of the citizens of the USA roaming in the desert/having legalized abortion will occur at the end of Obama’s first term, actually almost to the day of the inauguration in 2013, would be a rather significant coincidence, don’t you think? Now, nearing the end of the 40 years, homosexual ‘marriage’ is at the fore of the social values battle, too. Another coincidence? I don’t think so.

…Wherefore God gave them up to the desires of their heart, unto uncleanness, to dishonour their own bodies among themselves. 25 Who changed the truth of God into a lie; and worshipped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen. For this cause God delivered them up to shameful affections. For their women have changed the natural use into that use which is against nature. 27 And, in like manner, the men also, leaving the natural use of the women, have burned in their lusts one towards another, men with men working that which is filthy, and receiving in themselves the recompense which was due to their error.

The whole of Romans 1 could have been written specifically to the United States of America. (of course, it is specific to us, as the Bible is both specific and general, personal and universal, timely and timeless) Everything Saint Paul wrote is being fulfilled in our country down to the last line. Take note all you personally opposed but others should be allowed to folks.

And as they liked not to have God in their knowledge, God delivered them up to a reprobate sense, to do those things which are not convenient; 29 Being filled with all iniquity, malice, fornication, avarice, wickedness, full of envy, murder, contention, deceit, malignity, whisperers, 30 Detractors, hateful to God, contumelious, proud, haughty, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents, 31 Foolish, dissolute, without affection, without fidelity, without mercy. 32 Who, having known the justice of God, did not understand that they who do such things, are worthy of death; and not only they that do them, but they also that consent to them that do them.

We were just going over the burning of Babylon in my Revelations Bible study. Again, it could have been written about the USA.

There is no question our country is at a turning point. What direction will we make? I call heaven and earth to witness this day, that I have set before you life and death, blessing and cursing. Choose therefore life, that both thou and thy seed may live:

But the consensus seems to be that all reference to God or morality needs to be held silent, so as not to divide the fiscal conservative (ie Tea Party) movement. *sigh* Go ahead, but it won’t work and our Founding Fathers new it.

don’t have a problem with that. What I have a problem with is a tendency to think that such a man as Reagan can come from a irreligious vacuum.

spmat on March 31, 2010 at 10:19 PM

And I apologize if I in any way implied was not religious. He was- his mother was active in the church and greatly influenced him, as he often wrote and spoke. However, as President he did not attend church, mainly due to the security issues and disruptions it would cause.

I’m not sure if you are old enough to remember Regan, or if you’ve read his writings, but he was more liberatarian.

Are you kidding?!
I’m one of the people in this country that demanded he take Carter’s place in 1980!!!

I just am not so passionate about social issues as I am about liberty, freedom and fiscal conservativism. To me they are more important issues, and should be the issues the party focuses on more than social issues if we are to take back the House and Senate.

theenforser on March 31, 2010 at 10:19 PM

The republic is in a different place politically than it was 30 years ago: Social Conservatism is an integral part of the 3-legged stool of Conservatism.
Surrender 1 leg of the stool to the Left & the Democrats at your own peril, but don’t be surprised when the other 2 legs follow.

Because that is what you guys most fixate on. And it isn’t just about Abortion, if that money was spent at a mom and pop bar, we probably wouldn’t hear it and if we did hear about it what we would hear from you Traditionalists is crickets. But toss in Lesb!an and bondage and all yalls response is predictably Pavlovian.

Excellent post, and had our founding fathers established a christian theocracy I would absolutley agree with your sentiments. However, despite invoking Providence, Creator etc., they did not establish a national or state religion. The two were separated to avoid the agruements that we have been engaged in.

Look, I’m anti-abortion, anti-gay marrige, anti-drug and I follow God’s commandments. However, I’m also an American and am bound by the Constitution not to enforce my beliefs on others as I certainly do not want others to enforce theirs on me. Part of having freedom is to let others enjoy their freedom and not feel like you should control what they do.

These might seem like garden-variety gotchas on the expense account — except for this: The RNC is spending more money than it’s raising. Since January 2009, the RNC has raised $109 million, but spent $115 million.

$6 Million in the Red. Looks like they believe Obama that, “In order to keep from going broke you need to spend more money!”

Now … I reckon there’s two kinds of Conservatives – the SoCons and the “Fiscals”.

So the SoCon’s are ticked off at the strip bar expenditures and the Fiscals … not so much. But …

Why aren’t the “Fiscals” a little upset that the RNC is $6M in the hole due to their “fiscal” spending habits.

Remind me please – just what a “Fiscal Conservative” is and how one resolves this obvious lack of fiscal constraint on the part of the RNC.

Please defend this – and please do so without resorting to the old saw … “But, But … we want our team to WIN!!!”

Unfortunately, not everyone subscribes to natural law. There are many who derive their morals from different ethical frameworks. I’m a natural law person myself, but I cannot expect everyone else to be. (Although I would prefer it).

I think that social conservatives get a bad rap because we are necessarily reactionary. Conservatives by nature are a live and let live breed of people. We believe in the Constitution and have a firm moral belief system and we have to react when liberals ‘find’ things in the Constitution or the law that just aren’t there.

Let me ask all you “FisCons” … if the RNC had NOT paid for the strip bar – if in fact, it came out that someone tried to recoup the expense for the strip bar and the RNC immediately asked them what kind of dope they were smoking …

Would that have upset the “FisCons”?

Seems to me if they had done that – then both the FisCons and the SoCons would be happy now.

Funny thing — anyone mentions Robert Spencer’s disappearance from HotAir, and it’s like it never happened.

Well, I for one, would love to know, why Dr. Spencer was so unceremoniously dismissed from the front page here once a week. I thought that I must have been absent from an “episode” here on the nets, but have since been led to believe that Dr. Spencer was just dropped like a hot potato with no warning and no explanation.

I feel that some information would be in order, considering Dr. Spencer’s considerable contributions during the time that this blog was in it’s early growing pains.

Of course, this is the wrong place to address this, but as for my hillbilly ass getting an answer any other way… huh.

And yet, again, all of those things were illegal right up until 40 years and less ago. And it wasn’t a specific religion that made that so; it was the law of our land based on the faith of our Founding Fathers. You all act as though these were new things we radical religious types were trying to suddenly impose on you out of nowhere. Why is it suddenly turning us into a theocracy if we go back to it? What is the problem with returning to the laws that we lived buy for the vast majority of our existence as a civilization? Every law we live by is enforced on someone who doesn’t like it or else we’d have no need of prisons. By your argument, we should be a lawless people. Of course, we are getting there. Please, reread that last line I quoted from Romans 1. If you are a Catholic, it should hold some sway with you.

I think that social conservatives get a bad rap because we are necessarily reactionary. Conservatives by nature are a live and let live breed of people. We believe in the Constitution and have a firm moral belief system and we have to react when liberals ‘find’ things in the Constitution or the law that just aren’t there.

Don’t you think it makes us look like a bunch of meanies for having to be loud and say no to something, or try to get something reversed, when that something should not have been allowed in the first place?

Please, reread that last line I quoted from Romans 1. If you are a Catholic, it should hold some sway with you.

pannw on March 31, 2010 at 10:51 PM

As a Catholic it does. However, I can separate being a Catholic from being a US citizen. Where in the constitution does one religious group get to assert domination over others? It doesn’t, for good reason.

In addition, I am not God and therefore I cannot and will not judge other people. I may personally disaprove, but that’s as far as I go. It’s up to God to sit in judgment.

Don’t you think it makes us look like a bunch of meanies for having to be loud and say no to something, or try to get something reversed, when that something should not have been allowed in the first place?

Sporty1946 on March 31, 2010 at 11:01 PM

Not necessarily. We just need to pick our battles. For example, getting the health care bill repealed is one that we should fight for. (Note to TPTB: fight does not mean violence).

But the problem is – we’re all still looking for a party that will do it! In other headlines – GOP backing down on repeal of ObamaCare.

HondaV65 on March 31, 2010 at 11:07 PM

That is a problem, and why I agree with donating to candidates that reflect your beliefs rather than donating to a party that can’t remember what it stands for. Focus on individual candidates who will rebuild the party.

The odd thing is, I don’t disagree with most of other Social Conservative’s conclusions. I just disagree with the way they get to the conclusions, the way they justify them. Its like Obama reasoning on Health Care Reform, you can keep your doctor because Obama says so!

One doesn’t need Faith to understand that only a few select tribes of American Indians put Homosexuality, Effeminacy and Transvestism on the same pedestal as heterosexual marriages and traditional gender roles, or that Homosexual men have STD infection rates and number of partners above all other genders and sexual orientations.

You don’t need faith to see that when you put an aborted fetus back together (to verify all the remains are out of the womb) it looks a hell of a lot like a living infant out of the womb.

You only need faith to believe in whatever Deities to worship, not to think.

If Reagan signed an abortion bill as Governor would you still vote for him?

Reagan was pro-choice at one time but later convicted about it and became pro-life and campaigned on it as president.

Reagan wrote: “My answer to what kind of abortion bill I could sign was one that recognized an abortion taking of a human life.”

If he fought against the Briggs Initiative which would have kicked homosexual teachers from public education, would you vote for him?

I don’t know how involved he was in the Briggs initiative but as president he didn’t waiver at all on social issues…the rest is history. I’m taking caution because I have been hearing this from liberals so I’m taking caution.

I haven’t been that impress with the RNC over the last decade. They are part of the “Country Club” Republicans or “establishment. I like what someone mentioned on this thread is get rid of the RNC it’s almost like we can do without.

Disclaimer: I’m not really advocating getting rid of RNC but when an organization like that can’t rally the people like the dems can just tells me what good are they?

Well the libs are doing what the RNC can’t do which is rallying us…impressive, I though I would ever give the libs any credit.